Back
2000 (2) JLJ 1
(SUPREME COURT)
S.S. Mohammed Quadri and N. Santosh Hegde, JJ.
Jamnalal and others v. Radhesbyam
Civil Appeal No. 3340 of 1998; against the judgment of M.P. High Court.
passed in Second Appeal No. 183 of 1993; Decided on 18.4.2000.
(2) Accommodation Control Act, 1961 (M.P.) -- S. 13 -- provisions are beneficial to both tenant and landlord -- it gives protection against eviction on deposit of rent to tenant. -- landlord receives rent for pre-litigation period and also during pendency of litigation. [Para 10
(3) Accommodation Control Act, 1961 (M.P.) -- Ss. 13(1) and 12(1) (a) to (p) -- eviction suit under S. 12(1) on any of the grounds -- tenant is under obligation to pay/deposit all arrears of rent and future rent during pendency of litigation. [Para 10
(4) Accommodation Control Act, 1961 (M.P.) -- Ss. 12(1) (a) to (p) and 13 -- suit not based of arrears of rent under clause (a) but on any other clause -- still the tenant is required to pay future rent. [para 11
(5) Accommodation Control Act, 1961 (M.P.) -- S. 13(1), (2) and (3) -- rate and quantum of arrears admitted -- no difficulty arises in depositing relit -- difficulty arises if rate. quantum of arrears or person to whom it is payable is disputed. [Para 12
(6) Accommodation Control Act, 1961 (M.P.) -- S. 13(2) -- dispute as to amount of rent payable by tenant having no nexus with rate of rent -- determination of such dispute in summary inquiry not contemplated under this provision -- such dispute has to he resolved after trail.
[Para 14
(7) Accommodation Control Act, 1961 (M.P.) -- S. 13(1) and (2) -- rate and quantum of arrears of rent both disputed – S- 13(1) becomes inoperative till fixation of monthly rent under S- 13(2) – such fixation governs compliance of S. 13(1). [Para 14
(8) Accommodation Control Act, 1961 (M.P.) -- Ss. 13(1),(2) and 12(1)(a) -- dispute as to payment of rent after service of demand notice and also payment of future rent during litigation -- not contemplated under S. 13(1) -- not to be resolved under S. 13(2) -- if tenant found in arrears after trial eviction decree has to be passed. [Para 14, 16 & 17
(9) Accommodation Control Act, 1961 (M.P.) -- S. 13(3) and (4) -- frivolous dispute raised as to entitlement to receive the rent -- Court may strike out defence of tenant. [Para 15
(10) Accommodation Control Act, 1961 (M.P.) -- Ss. 12(3) and 13(2) -- every kind of dispute as to amount of rent payable by tenant -- is not covered, under S. 13(2). 1970 JLJ 782 partly overruled. [Para 19
(11) Accommodation Control Act, 1961 (M.P.) -- S. 13(1) and (2) -- dispute raised and brought to the notice of Court -- provisions of S. 13(1) are arrested till fixation of provisional rent as to amount to be deposited -- is too wide a statement to be correct. 1972 JLJ 763 overruled. [Para 20
(12) Accommodation Control Act, 1961 (M.P.) -- S. 13(1) and (2) -- dispute raised under S. 13(2) -- operation of S. 13(1) is arrested as held by full Bench of High Court -- cannot be approved being obiter dicta. 1975 JLJ 779 (FB) not approved. [para 21
(13) Accommodation Control Act, 1961 (M.P.) -- S. 13 (1) and (2) -- rate of rent not disputed but arrears disputed -- not a dispute under S. 13 (2) -- liability to perform second part of S. 13(1) -- commences only when first part‘s liability is ripe for performance. 1977 JLJ 817 overruled. [paras 22 & 23
(14) Accommodation Control Act, 1961 (M.P.) -- Ss. 13(2) (1), 13(5) and 12(3) -- provisional rate of rent fixed -- tenant not complying the same -- not entitled to protection under S. 13 (5) and 12(3) even if no provisional rent is fixed and left to be decided in trial. [Para 24
¼1½ LFkku fu;a=.k vf/kfu;e] 1961 ¼e-i-½ && /kkjk 12 ¼1½ ¼d½ ¼3½ rFkk 13 && /kkjk 12 && ¼1½¼d½ ds v/khu csn[kyh ds fy, okn ek¡x dh lwpuk ds nks ekl i‘pkr~ Qkby fd;k x;k && ;fn /kkjk 13 ds vuqlkj HkkM+s dk fu{ksi dj ns rc vfHk/kkjh /kkjk 12¼3½ ds v/khu fucZaf/kr gdnkjh dk nkok dj ldrh gSA ¿ iSjk 9À
¼2½ LFkku fu;a=.k vf/kfu;e] 1961 ¼e-i-½ && /kkjk 13 && mica/k vfHk/kkjh rFkk Hkw&Lokeh] nksuksa dks Qk;nkizn && mlds }kjk vfHk/kkjh dks HkkMs+ dk fu{ksi fd, tkus ij csn[kyh ls laj{k.k fn;k x;k gS Hkw&Lokeh eqdnesckth ls iwoZ dh vof/k ds fy, rFkk eqdnesckth ds yacu ds nkSjku HkkM+k izkIr djrk gSA ¿ iSjk 10À
¼3½ LFkku fu;a=.k vf/kfu;e] 1961 ¼e-i-½ && /kkjk 13 ¼1½ rFkk 12 ¼1½ ¼d½ rFkk ls ¼r½ && /kkjk 12¼1½ ds v/khu fdlh Hkh vk/kkj ij csn[kyh dk okn && vfHk/kkjh HkkMs dh lc cdk;k rFkk eqdnesckth ds yacu ds nkSjku Hkkoh HkkM+k lanÙkA fuf{kIr djus dk vkc) gSA ¿ iSjk 10À
¼4½ LFkku fu;a=.k vf/kfu;e] 1961 ¼e-i-½ && /kkjk 12 ¼1½ ¼d½ ls ¼r½ && /kkjk [kaM ¼d½ ds v/khu ds HkkMs+ dh cdk;k ij vk/kkfjr ugha vfirq vU; fdlh [kaM ij vk/kkfjr && rc Hkh vfHk/kkjh ls Hkkoh fdjk;k lanÙk djuk visf{krA ¿ iSjk 11À
¼5½ LFkku fu;a=.k vf/kfu;e] 1961 ¼e-i-½ && /kkjk 13 ¼1½] ¼2½ rFkk ¼3½ && cdk;k dh nj rFkk ifjek.k Loh—r && HkkM+k fuf{kIr djus esa dksbZ dfBukbZ ugha && dfBukbZ rc mn~Hkwr gksrh gS ;fn cdk;k dh nj] ifjek.k vFkok fdls lans; gS ;g fookfnr gksA ¿ iSjk 12À
¼6½ LFkku fu;a=.k vf/kfu;e] 1961 ¼e-i-½ && /kkjk 13 ¼2½ && vfHk/kkjh }kjk lans; HkkMs+ dh jde ds ckjs esa fookn dk HkkMs+ dh nj ls laca/k ugha && laf{kIr tk¡p esa ,sls fookn dk vo/kkj.k bl mica/k ds v/khu vuq/;kr ugha && ,sls fookn dk lek/kku fopkj.k ds i‘pkr~ fd;k tkuk gksrk gSA ¿ iSjk 14À
¼7½ LFkku fu;a=.k vf/kfu;e] 1961 ¼e-i-½ && /kkjk 13 ¼1½ rFkk ¼2½ && nj rFkk HkkMs+ dh cdk;k dk ifjek.k] nksuksa fookfnr && /kkjk 13¼2½ ds v/khu ekfld HkkM+k fu;r fd, tkus rd /kkjk 13¼1½ vizoZru‘kby gks tkrh gS && ,sls fu;ru ls /kkjk 13¼1½ dk vuqikyu fofu;fer gksrk gSA ¿ iSjk 14À
¼8½ LFkku fu;a=.k vf/kfu;e] 1961 ¼e-i-½ && /kkjk 13 ¼1½] ¼2½ rFkk 12 ¼1½ ¼d½ && ek¡x dh lwpuk dh rkeby ds i‘pkr~ HkkMs+ ds lank; rFkk eqdnesckth ds nkSjku Hkkoh HkkMs+ ds ckjs esa Hkh fookn && /kkjk 13¼1½ ds v/khu vuq/;kr ugha && /kkjk 13¼2½ ds v/khu lek/kku ugha gksxk && ;fn fopkj.k ds i‘pkr~ vfHk/kkjh ij cdk;k fudyrh gS rc csn[kyh dh fMØh ikfjr dh tkuk gksxhA ¿ iSjk 14] 16 rFkk 17À
¼9½ LFkku fu;a=.k vf/kfu;e] 1961 ¼e-i-½ && /kkjk 13 ¼3½ rFkk ¼4½ HkkM+k izkIr djus dh gdnkjh ds ckjs esa rqPN fookn mBk;k x;k && U;k;ky; }kjk vfHk/kkjh dks izfrj{kk dkVh tk ldrh gSA ¿ iSjk 15À
¼10½ LFkku fu;a=.k vf/kfu;e] 1961 ¼e-i-½ && /kkjk 12 ¼3½ rFkk 13¼2½ vfHk/kkjh }kjk lans; HkkMs+ dh jde ds ckjs esa gj izdkj dk fookn && /kkjk 13¼2½ ds v/khu ugha vkrkA 1970 ts ,y ts 782 Hkkxr% myVk x;kA ¿ iSjk 19À
¼11½ LFkku fu;a=.k vf/kfu;e] 1961 ¼e-i-½ && /kkjk 13 ¼1½ rFkk ¼2½ fookn mBk;k x;k rFkk U;k;ky; dh –f"V esa yk;k x;k && fuf{kIr dh tkus okyh jde ds ckjs esa vuafre HkkM+s ds fu;ru rd /kkjk 13¼1½ ds mica/kksa dk izorZu :d tkrk gS && lgh gksus ds fy, ;g vR;f/kd foLr`r dFku gSA 1972 ts ,y ts 763 myVk x;kA ¿ iSjk 20À
¼12½ LFkku fu;a=.k vf/kfu;e] 1961 ¼e-i-½ && /kkjk 13 ¼1½ rFkk ¼2½ /kkjk 13¼2½ ds v/khu fookn mn~Hkwr && /kkjk 13¼1½ dk izorZu :d tkrk gS tSlk mPp U;k;ky; dh iw.kZ U;k;ihB }kjk vfHkfu/kkZfjr fd;k x;k gS && brjksfDr gksus ds dkj.k vuqeksfnr ugha fd;k tk ldrkA 1975 ts ,y ts 779 ¼iw.kZ U;k;ihB½ vuqeksfnrA ¿ iSjk 21À
¼13½ LFkku fu;a=.k vf/kfu;e] 1961 ¼e-i-½ && /kkjk 13 ¼1½ rFkk ¼2½ HkkMs+ dh nj fookfnr ugha ijarq cdk;k fookfnr && /kkjk 13¼2½ ds v/khu fookn ugha gS && /kkjk 13¼1½ ds f}rh; Hkkx dk vuqikyu djus dk nkf;Ro&rc gh vkjaHk gksrk gS tc izFke Hkkx dk nkf;Ro vuqikyu ds fy, ifjiDo gksA 1977 ts ,y ts 817 myVk x;kA ¿ iSjk 22 rFkk 23À
¼14½ LFkku fu;a=.k vf/kfu;e] 1961 ¼e-i-½ && /kkjk 13 ¼2½ ¼1½] 13¼5½ rFkk 12 ¼3½ && HkkMs+ dh vuafre nj fu;r && vfHk/kkjh us mldk vuqikyu ugha fd;k && vuafre nj fu;r ugha gks rFkk mls fopkj.k esa fofuf‘pr fd, tkus ds fy, NksM+k x;k gks rc Hkh /kkjk 13¼5½ rFkk 12¼3½ ds v/khu laj{k.k dk gdnkj ugha gSA ¿ iSjk 24À
Quadri, J. -- 1. The question that arises for consideration in this appeal is : can the Court pass a decree for eviction of a tenant under Section 12(1)(a), without first determining provisionally the amount of rent payable under Section 13(2) of the M.P. Accommodation Control Act, 1961, when the tenant, having admitted the rate of rent, failed to establish that he had paid the arrears of rent?
2. This appeal, by special leave, is preferred by the landlords challenging the validity of the judgment of a learned Single Judge of the High Court of Madbya Pradesh, Indore Bench, in Second Appeal No. 183 of 1993 passed on December 16, 1997.
3. The relevant facts giving rise to this appeal need be noticed.
4. One Bherulal was the owner of house No. 1/796, Brahmin Gali, Ujjain, (Madbya Pradesh) in which he let out three rooms (hereinafter referred to as 'the suit accommodation') for residential purposes to the respondent (tenant) on a monthly rent of Rs. 60/-. A rent note was also executed on December 4, 1971. The said Bherulal passed away, leaving behind him the appellants (landlords) among other heirs, on April 19, 1972. It is stated that in the partition of his properties among his heirs the suit accommodation fell to the share of the landlords. On November 29, 1976, the landlords issued a notice to the tenant terminating his tenancy on two grounds - (i) default in payment of arrears of rent for the period commencing from 2.3.1976 to 2.4.1977 and (ii) creating nuisance. On the plea that despite service of the notice of demand the tenant did not pay the arrears of rent nor did he abate nuisance, the landlords filed Civil Suit No. 340-A of 1989 in the Court of Civil Judge Class-II, Ujjain, M.P. for recovery of possession by ejectment of the tenant under Section 12(1)(a) of the Madbya Pradesh Accommodation Control Act, 1961, (for short the Act'). The tenant contested the suit pleading that he had paid the arrears of rent and denying the ground of nuisance; however, he admitted that the rent was Rs. 60/- per month. On the basis of the evidence produced by the parties before it, the trial Court round that receipts produced by the tenant in proof of payment of rent for the period from March to July, 1976 (Exhs. 01 to 04) were forged and that the tenant committed default in payment of rent for the said period; it ordered his prosecution also under Section 193 of the Indian Penal Code. The ground of nuisance was also accepted. On December 20, 1990, in view of these findings, the trial Court decreed the suit for eviction of the tenant. Against that judgment the tenant filed appeal in the Court of 1st Additional District Judge, Ujjain, M.P. On April 27, 1993, the Appellate Court confirmed the decree of the trial Court and dismissed the appeal with costs. In the tenant's second appeal, the High Court framed the following substantial question of law under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure:
"Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case, the decree passed by the Courts below under Section 12(1)(a) of the M.P. Accommodation Control Act, 1961, without fixing provisional rent in terms of Section 13(2) of the said Act. despite dispute about the quantum of arrears of rent, is sustainable in law'?"
5. The High Court took the view that as the tenant disputed being in arrears of rent and no provisional rent was determined by the trial Court, the operation of the whole of Sub-section (1) of Section 13 of the Act was arrested as such the tenant could not be met with the penal consequences of eviction decree denying him the benefit of Sub-section (3) of Section 12 of the Act. It was also noted that the tenant had cleared all the arrears accruing due during the pendency of the suit and appeal so the landlords' claim for eviction on the sale ground under Section 12(1)(a) of the Act must fail and thus allowed the second appeal by the judgment impugned in this appeal.
6. Mr. A.K. Chit ale. learned Senior Counsel appearing for the appellants,
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
